***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[[icon]]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Its like mad Sweeney but for the other side.

 

[FootballDummy]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

 

[ATC1]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

I'm for getting rid of all guns. I'll just hold one to my hip until that happens, cool?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

 

[[icon]]

Keep spewing disinformation. It's like a reverse 1984.


>The American National Rifle Association claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.[49]

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

Oh snap... lawyered.

 

[Chaka]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

Way to miss the point. I only said it was funny and would not move the needle in here. I didn't say we should try it in America.

 

[Chaka]

One of these days 5 digit you are going to accept that I am in favor of gun ownership. What I want is to do something about all the idiots who are ####### it up for the rest of us. And plenty of those idiots are the ones who say they are trying to protect our second amendment rights.

 

[Chaka]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

Yeah the gun control thing in Australia started in 1996 so I am not sure what officer Chenel's comments, which apparently are from 1997, have to do with anything in 2013.

 

[Chaka]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

 

[FootballDummy]

Not going to change minds one way or another but this is damn funny.

As a gun owner I am appalled by some of the jokers who are defending my right to keep and arm bears.

Yeah! Let's ban all guns to focus on a teeny tiny corner of the violence spectrum.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

Don't stop him, he's rolling.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

Homicides spike up. (Don't make me break out MS Paint)

The rest are indicative of violent crime, do you disagree?

...and I find it hilarious that people point to accidental gun deaths and suicides when the discussion is about VIOLENT CRIME.

 

[[icon]]

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Okay I know the complex act of following a line might confuse some folks but here's a helpful guide:

Line gets closer to top of page: Homicides go up

Line gets closer to the bottom of the page: Homicides go down

Homicides have been climbing steadily since 2004 and are at around the same point they were when the gun control went into effect.

Soooo...yeah.

 

[[icon]]

To those pointing wildly at the drop of firearm violence in Australia in the period from 1996 to recently...Firearm crime rates have dropped as part of a overall trend in Western Democracies over that timeframe.

NonFatal Firearm Violence Victims (USA)1996: 1,100,809 (5.1 Rate)

2010: 415,003 (1.6 Rate) So it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a precipitous drop in gun crime in australia over that time frame is due to the gun ban, when we had a similar (if not more dramatic) results in the US without a Gun Ban in place.... in fact it's fair to point to an overall trend of decreasing gun violence as a whole.

 

[Mookie]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:

(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.

(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.

(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.

(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.

(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.

Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

 

[[icon]]

Mookie, on 23 Apr 2013 - 11:15, said:

STEADYMOBBIN 22, on 22 Apr 2013 - 21:31, said:

Mookie, on 22 Apr 2013 - 16:46, said:I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

1) The founding fathers and current seated members of the Supreme Court disagree with you.2) Will never...ever happen thankfully.3) I have ZERO problems with universal background checks to be honest. I disagree with proficiency tests for any firearm purchase only becuase I have absolutely zero faith in the government to do it effectively or affordably. I appreciate the existing testing required for carry permits.4) "Certain Classes" of weapons is rather a broad brush.... care to elaborate?5) Agreed. My biggest complain is gun laws will have negligible impact on these guys, so you're essentially just adding a ton of red tape, changing the constitution, and adding a ton of cost/headache to primarily law abiding citizens with limited impact on the actual problem. Doing something expensive and painstaking that doesn't fix the problem is NOT better than doing nothing.Pool comparison is very viable.Both are recreational items enjoyed by a large percentage of the USBoth have a many legitimate purposes/use that are safe when used responsibly.Both are very dangerous when precautions aren't taken/followed.Both require no actual action on the part of the owner to become harmful fatal to visitors of their homeBoth have safety regulations in place to limit the dangers associated.... those regulations have punishments associated.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:

(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.

(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.

(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.

(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.

(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.

Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

What you are suggesting is that everyone needs to apply for the equivalent of a CCW before they are allowed to own a gun which greatly increases the barrier to gun ownership and will only slant people towards the anti-gun side allowing them to steam roll whatever legislation they want to pass in a few decades.

...and none of these drastic measures that you are postulating will ever prevent the deputy's son that shot and killed a visiting mom, nor do they have much of any chance of coming to realization. If this means so much to you are you going to move to a country with much stronger gun control where your son will be safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun owning neighbors?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Because you didn't mention it in your reply.All you took away from that was they needed to add guns to the dress code according to your reply.

Why would I mention it when it's clear that we don't have enough details to come to an informed conclusion as to whether his arrest was justified?

TGunz is too stubborn to admit he was wrong.

Student returns to school on first day after suspension wearing the same exact T-Shirt.

http://www.wowktv.com/story/22041738/eighth-grader-suspended-over-t-shirt-returns-to-school-wv-logan-middle-school-jared-marcum

 

[ATC1]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:

(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.

(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.

(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.

(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.

(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.

Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

What you are suggesting is that everyone needs to apply for the equivalent of a CCW before they are allowed to own a gun which greatly increases the barrier to gun ownership and will only slant people towards the anti-gun side allowing them to steam roll whatever legislation they want to pass in a few decades.

...and none of these drastic measures that you are postulating will ever prevent the deputy's son that shot and killed a visiting mom, nor do they have much of any chance of coming to realization. If this means so much to you are you going to move to a country with much stronger gun control where your son will be safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun owning neighbors?

I don't know about that. The need to have a fishing or hunting license does not hinder the number of people that would actually hunt an fish. Rather just makes people aware that there are laws and regulations that comes with hunting and fishing.

CCW is a gun owners ability to carry for self defense outside their own private property. If it was a requirement to have a license to shoot for the range, hunting, sport etc. I don't think people would have a huge problem with a license. It would make purchasing a weapon much easier both through a dealer and private sales IMO.

My problem I would find is that the testing and classes for requirement would be so watered down and hard to effectively police.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:

(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.

(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.

(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.

(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.

(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.

Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

What you are suggesting is that everyone needs to apply for the equivalent of a CCW before they are allowed to own a gun which greatly increases the barrier to gun ownership and will only slant people towards the anti-gun side allowing them to steam roll whatever legislation they want to pass in a few decades.

...and none of these drastic measures that you are postulating will ever prevent the deputy's son that shot and killed a visiting mom, nor do they have much of any chance of coming to realization. If this means so much to you are you going to move to a country with much stronger gun control where your son will be safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun owning neighbors?

I don't know about that. The need to have a fishing or hunting license does not hinder the number of people that would actually hunt an fish. Rather just makes people aware that there are laws and regulations that comes with hunting and fishing.

CCW is a gun owners ability to carry for self defense outside their own private property. If it was a requirement to have a license to shoot for the range, hunting, sport etc. I don't think people would have a huge problem with a license. It would make purchasing a weapon much easier both through a dealer and private sales IMO.

My problem I would find is that the testing and classes for requirement would be so watered down and hard to effectively police.

Look at New York City where they pick and choose who gets to have licenses, I only see negatives coming from these types of moves. This is just one big money grab, if the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by felons this will do zero to curb those numbers. And rewriting the second amendment? Good luck with that.

 

[ATC1]

I love the responsible gun owner play. Like the deputy who's 4 year old found daddy's gun and shot a visiting mom? Or the 4 year old who found daddy's gun and shot his 6 year old friend? People who play the responsible gun owner card say these are tragic accidents, mistakes, or even a collateral byproduct of our freedom to own guns.

The problem I have is that the visiting mom, and the 6 year old friend and his parents have a right to not get shot dead that, in my view, trumps the responsible gun owner's right to have a little fun target shooting or telling others about his cool new toy. The never ending shoulder shrugging of responsible gun owners over these near daily shootings fails to recognize that the responsible gun owners are tacitly approving of these and other shootings by not supporting limits on who, what, and how guns are owned in this country.

So I guess by this post you're for getting rid of ALL guns?

No. I favor the following:

(1) Repeal or reword the 2nd Amendment. It is a historical relic that is no longer applicable or relevant to our present circumstances. Gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right IMO.

(2) Criminalize possession of a firearm of any kind without a license. This simplifies enforcement.

(3) Create a licensing system that requires a background check and proficiency test before a license is issued. Prove that your a responsible gun owner instead of making me assume that you are until my kid gets kid in a play date at your house.

(4) Criminalize possession of certain classes of weapons. Include amnesty period and buybacks.

(5) There will still be bad guys. There will always be bad guys.

Now go ahead, call me an idiot, and draw more stupid comparisons to lightning and swimming pools while posting anecdotal ramblings from gun loving Aussies as fact. I don't care. That is what I want. Anything short of this is pointless IMO because it will get politicized and pick apart. I'm out.

What you are suggesting is that everyone needs to apply for the equivalent of a CCW before they are allowed to own a gun which greatly increases the barrier to gun ownership and will only slant people towards the anti-gun side allowing them to steam roll whatever legislation they want to pass in a few decades.

...and none of these drastic measures that you are postulating will ever prevent the deputy's son that shot and killed a visiting mom, nor do they have much of any chance of coming to realization. If this means so much to you are you going to move to a country with much stronger gun control where your son will be safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun owning neighbors?

I don't know about that. The need to have a fishing or hunting license does not hinder the number of people that would actually hunt an fish. Rather just makes people aware that there are laws and regulations that comes with hunting and fishing.

CCW is a gun owners ability to carry for self defense outside their own private property. If it was a requirement to have a license to shoot for the range, hunting, sport etc. I don't think people would have a huge problem with a license. It would make purchasing a weapon much easier both through a dealer and private sales IMO.

My problem I would find is that the testing and classes for requirement would be so watered down and hard to effectively police.

Look at New York City where they pick and choose who gets to have licenses, I only see negatives coming from these types of moves. This is just one big money grab, if the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by felons this will do zero to curb those numbers. And rewriting the second amendment? Good luck with that.

Yeah, a problem would be that as a result it would make it easier to take seize or suspend a license if your kid brings a water gun to school, or threatens a bully with a bb gun. That is a whole other issue. It is unfortunate no side wants to give anything because of what it may turn into or how the laws maybe interpreted etc.

As far as a money grab. There would be a lot less background checks needed. I don't see where it would be all that different from a driver's license.

As far as rewriting the 2nd amendment. I don't think the 4th amendment will want to be touched, so I don't see how the 2nd will be either.

 

[mad sweeney]

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

Homicides spike up. (Don't make me break out MS Paint)

The rest are indicative of violent crime, do you disagree?

...and I find it hilarious that people point to accidental gun deaths and suicides when the discussion is about VIOLENT CRIME.

I find it hilarious that people still use the "only lawbreakers break the law" argument. No #### Sherlock. Every criminal doesn't care about breaking the laws, that's the point.

 

[Chaka]

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

Homicides spike up. (Don't make me break out MS Paint)

The rest are indicative of violent crime, do you disagree?

...and I find it hilarious that people point to accidental gun deaths and suicides when the discussion is about VIOLENT CRIME.

The spike is for one half of 2002 but the overall trend is down. There appears to be a rise from 2005-2006 but it is still below pre-gun control laws levels.

The discussion is about gun control, check the thread title.

I am not sure how gun control is supposed to impact crimes that aren't gun related and I don't know if there were promises or expectations that those crimes would/should drop just because guns are restricted. It seems that for gun control we should talk about violence related to, y'know, guns. Gun accidents and suicide by gun are directly related to gun control and should not be ignored in the discussion.

 

[Chaka]

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Okay I know the complex act of following a line might confuse some folks but here's a helpful guide:

Line gets closer to top of page: Homicides go up

Line gets closer to the bottom of the page: Homicides go down

Homicides have been climbing steadily since 2004 and are at around the same point they were when the gun control went into effect.

Soooo...yeah.

Ummmm...yeah the major gun laws under Prime Minister Howard went into effect in 1996 and were bolstered in 2000 so I am not sure what point you are making. Homicides are down since the gun laws went into effect, the spike you are pointing to is still below pre-gun control levels and look to go from 2005 to the first half of 2006 where the data stops.

The better argument from that chart is that gun homicides were dropping before institution of those laws in 1996.

And mass killings, more than 4 people, went from 13 in the prior 18 years to zero in the subsequent 17 years.

 

[Chaka]

I also wonder if Australians have suffered the tyrannical government doomsday that so many people seem to argue would occur if the government restricted gun ownership in any way.

Any Aussies on here want to chime in on how the government has abused you since the gun laws went into effect? Perhaps we should have Chloe open a secure socket so you can speak freely.

 

[[icon]]

To those pointing wildly at the drop of firearm violence in Australia in the period from 1996 to recently...Firearm crime rates have dropped as part of a overall trend in Western Democracies over that timeframe.

NonFatal Firearm Violence Victims (USA)1996: 1,100,809 (5.1 Rate)

2010: 415,003 (1.6 Rate) So it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a precipitous drop in gun crime in australia over that time frame is due to the gun ban, when we had a similar (if not more dramatic) results in the US without a Gun Ban in place.... in fact it's fair to point to an overall trend of decreasing gun violence as a whole.

Bump... those touting the awesome declining australian gun crime rate seem to have missed this post.

 

[Spanky267]

I wonder if those on here pushing for the licensing of all firearms and a requirement to show proficiency to purchase a firearm would like it if voting were regulated in the same manner.

In order to vote you would have to successfully complete a civics and U.S. Government course. You would have to show an understanding of the workings of our federal government as well as state and local government. Once you show proficiency you would be granted a license to vote.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well that settles it, if Wikipedia and Attorney General Daryl Williams says crime has gone down, oh wait it doesn't say that at all. All it says is to stop drawing attention to Australia's crime problem.

From the Australian Government's Australian Institute of Criminology website, I guess we cannot trust them either, huh?

homicides

assaults

rapes

robbery

Stomping out ignorance one graph at a time.

First chart demonstrates that homicides are down.

Why are you including the assault, rape and robbery charts? Were guns involved? It would help if you provided a little more info, right now those charts are a little out of context.

Did you check the accidental gun death and suicide by firearm numbers since the law went into effect?

Homicides spike up. (Don't make me break out MS Paint)

The rest are indicative of violent crime, do you disagree?

...and I find it hilarious that people point to accidental gun deaths and suicides when the discussion is about VIOLENT CRIME.

I find it hilarious that people still use the "only lawbreakers break the law" argument. No #### Sherlock. Every criminal doesn't care about breaking the laws, that's the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle]Harm Principle

Murder causes harm to another individual. My ownership of guns does not.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

The gun grabber agenda misconstrues this concept to extend the notion that guns are inherently dangerous, completely neglecting the fact that they are only as dangerous as those who would use them for harm.

 

[Chaka]

To those pointing wildly at the drop of firearm violence in Australia in the period from 1996 to recently...Firearm crime rates have dropped as part of a overall trend in Western Democracies over that timeframe.

NonFatal Firearm Violence Victims (USA)1996: 1,100,809 (5.1 Rate)

2010: 415,003 (1.6 Rate) So it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a precipitous drop in gun crime in australia over that time frame is due to the gun ban, when we had a similar (if not more dramatic) results in the US without a Gun Ban in place.... in fact it's fair to point to an overall trend of decreasing gun violence as a whole.

Bump... those touting the awesome declining australian gun crime rate seem to have missed this post.

Those are very nice numbers. Can you expand on that data to include fatal firearm instances, accidental gun deaths and suicides by guns? Or just provide the link and I will do it myself.

And I am not sure that a rate of 1.6 is something to hang our hats on can you expand on what rate it is referring to?

 

[Chaka]

I wonder if those on here pushing for the licensing of all firearms and a requirement to show proficiency to purchase a firearm would like it if voting were regulated in the same manner.In order to vote you would have to successfully complete a civics and U.S. Government course. You would have to show an understanding of the workings of our federal government as well as state and local government. Once you show proficiency you would be granted a license to vote.

I would not be so opposed to that in principle. On the other side I think there are many on the "whatever gun to whoever wants it" who are in favor of voter ID laws and stricter voting laws in general.

 

[[icon]]

To those pointing wildly at the drop of firearm violence in Australia in the period from 1996 to recently...Firearm crime rates have dropped as part of a overall trend in Western Democracies over that timeframe. NonFatal Firearm Violence Victims (USA)1996: 1,100,809 (5.1 Rate)2010: 415,003 (1.6 Rate) So it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a precipitous drop in gun crime in australia over that time frame is due to the gun ban, when we had a similar (if not more dramatic) results in the US without a Gun Ban in place.... in fact it's fair to point to an overall trend of decreasing gun violence as a whole.

Bump... those touting the awesome declining australian gun crime rate seem to have missed this post.

Those are very nice numbers. Can you expand on that data to include fatal firearm instances, accidental gun deaths and suicides by guns? Or just provide the link and I will do it myself. And I am not sure that a rate of 1.6 is something to hang our hats on can you expand on what rate it is referring to?

Rate is per 100kFirearm Homicide Rate:1993: 6.72008: 4.1 (latest data I found) Firearm Suicide Rate:1993: 7.22008: 5.6Further proof that the anti-gun crowd are way off base with this assault weapons crap:• 68% of Homicides were Firearm related (2008)• Only 4% of that 68% were by "Rifles" (which includes all rifles, not just the extremely ambiguous "assault rifles"). By extension 71% were by Handguns. 5% were by shotguns which nobody seems to have a problem with.

Generally speaking, gun violence and mortality in general has been in decline for almost 2 decades now... generally speaking without any additional gun regulation needed. This is likely largely due to a much greater focus on education and safety, while increasing criminal penalties for use of guns while committing violent crime (something I have no problem with). When one considers that the VAST majority of individuals on BOTH sides of gun crime (over 90%) are felons... it stands to reason that increasing the penalties for gun crime will help make the streets safer WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the law abiding citizens who responsibly enjoy the hobbies associated with gun ownership. Source : CDC Wonder / NCHS

 

[tommyGunZ]

Rate is per 100kFirearm Homicide Rate:1993: 6.72008: 4.1 (latest data I found) Firearm Suicide Rate:1993: 7.22008: 5.6Further proof that the anti-gun crowd are way off base with this assault weapons crap:• 68% of Homicides were Firearm related (2008)• Only 4% of that 68% were by "Rifles" (which includes all rifles, not just the extremely ambiguous "assault rifles"). By extension 71% were by Handguns. 5% were by shotguns which nobody seems to have a problem with.

Generally speaking, gun violence and mortality in general has been in decline for almost 2 decades now... generally speaking without any additional gun regulation needed. This is likely largely due to a much greater focus on education and safety, while increasing criminal penalties for use of guns while committing violent crime (something I have no problem with). When one considers that the VAST majority of individuals on BOTH sides of gun crime (over 90%) are felons... it stands to reason that increasing the penalties for gun crime will help make the streets safer WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the law abiding citizens who responsibly enjoy the hobbies associated with gun ownership. Source : CDC Wonder / NCHS

How do these rates compare to other first world countries around the globe? If guns keep us safer, I'm guessing our extremely low gun death totals are the envy of the planet, eh?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Rate is per 100k

Firearm Homicide Rate:

1993: 6.7

2008: 4.1 (latest data I found)

Firearm Suicide Rate:

1993: 7.2

2008: 5.6

Further proof that the anti-gun crowd are way off base with this assault weapons crap:

• 68% of Homicides were Firearm related (2008)

• Only 4% of that 68% were by "Rifles" (which includes all rifles, not just the extremely ambiguous "assault rifles"). By extension 71% were by Handguns. 5% were by shotguns which nobody seems to have a problem with.

Generally speaking, gun violence and mortality in general has been in decline for almost 2 decades now... generally speaking without any additional gun regulation needed. This is likely largely due to a much greater focus on education and safety, while increasing criminal penalties for use of guns while committing violent crime (something I have no problem with). When one considers that the VAST majority of individuals on BOTH sides of gun crime (over 90%) are felons... it stands to reason that increasing the penalties for gun crime will help make the streets safer WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the law abiding citizens who responsibly enjoy the hobbies associated with gun ownership.

Source : CDC Wonder / NCHS

How do these rates compare to other first world countries around the globe? If guns keep us safer, I'm guessing our extremely low gun death totals are the envy of the planet, eh?

My Link

 

[Apple Jack]

Eloquent words from the great Mike Cooley:

There was this heavy box I carried around with me for years. I would pick it up, put it in the truck, haul it to the next place and that's where it stayed until it was time to move again. It was full of small caliber handgun and rifle cartridges, and shotgun shells of various size and shot patterns. It wouldn't be considered a stockpile by today's standards, and I didn't have any use for it then, but I inherited it and the guns that went with it from my father. So I would toss it into the pile with the rest of the baggage I wasn't ready to part with and pretend I was moving on.

My Dad owned a store. Similar to a convenience store, but located in the rural community where we lived, so it still functioned like a traditional country store,complete with a set of regulars that stopped by almost every day to chat. And without cable tv ( it's still not available there), 24/7 news , and the internet still over 20 years away, country stores and old ole boys had a wireless bull#### delivery system nonetheless. And good old boys never talk long without talking about guns.

I didn't think much about it at the time, but every now and then my Dad would come home convinced something was about to happen with regard to guns and ammo that required "stocking up." There were going to be limits on the number of boxes you could by. The price was going to reach unaffordable levels. "They" were going to make it so that you couldn't even buy guns any more or be able to use the ones you had. And this information was never reported in the news because "they" don't want you to know it. That's how that heavy assed box came to be, and would eventually come to me.

One night before I inherited all those bullets, I got shot at. They wouldn't have done me any good since I was trespassing. I'm pretty sure firing shots at the owner of the property you're trespassing on makes it worse. Anyway I was with a couple of friends and we were rolling this guys yard. His house was on a hill at the end of a long driveway with woods in between. We heard the door open and the lights came on and we ran through the woods toward the road. He fired 2 maybe 3 shots and I could hear the bullets going through the trees alongside us. I don't know if he was actually trying to hit us,and I'm not even sure if he could see us, but he didn't just fire in the air either. It had to be obvious we were running away even if it wasn't obvious we were just kids pulling a prank.

On another evening I was home with my parents and some of my friends thought it would be funny to steal the hubcaps off my car. We heard a noise and my Dad could see someone moving around outside. He got his gun, threw open the door and yelled "I'll blow your head off you son of a #####". One of my friends stood up from behind the car with his hands up saying "don't shoot Mr Cooley it's me". My Dad was red and shaking all over from fear and embarrassment. He'd almost shot a kid pulling a prank.

The inability to defend ones home or even the thought of that level of helplessness brings to mind images that are frightening for anyone, and my father and the man who shot at me belonged to a class and generation of men that were especially motivated that very fear. Robbing a man of the ability to defend his home was the last degrading thing the world could do to him. A world that many of the men of my dad's generation and class saw as having it in for them in the first place. And that was enough to make anything less than an armed response, a weak response.

I never told my Dad I got shot at pulling a prank, and the man who did it outlived him.

I got rid of that box of ammo. If I need to do some shooting, I can buy more.

And there was never a time when I couldn't.

-Cooley

 

[Chaka]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

 

[[icon]]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

I'm not under any delusions that the people of America will need to rise up against some massive government oppression.... and I think the vast vast majority of gun owners feel the same way. However "Cmon, there is a 99.9% chance the Government won't necessitate a rebellion" is no way near enough of a reason to discard the 2nd Amendment and take away the weapons from law abiding citizens.

 

[ATC1]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

Do we need to post the story again about the father in NY getting his guns seized because his son's school reported that his son verbally threatened a bully with a bb gun?

 

[Chaka]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

I'm not under any delusions that the people of America will need to rise up against some massive government oppression.... and I think the vast vast majority of gun owners feel the same way. However "Cmon, there is a 99.9% chance the Government won't necessitate a rebellion" is no way near enough of a reason to discard the 2nd Amendment and take away the weapons from law abiding citizens.

I support the 2nd Amendment I just want to understand the fear of the government argument. If they took our guns what would they do to trample our liberties that they aren't currently doing?

 

[Chaka]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

Do we need to post the story again about the father in NY getting his guns seized because his son's school reported that his son verbally threatened a bully with a bb gun?

Like I said, aside from taking our guns, what do we fear the government will do once they have taken our guns?

 

[Chaka]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

 

[Chaka]

Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns".

 

[ATC1]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

Do we need to post the story again about the father in NY getting his guns seized because his son's school reported that his son verbally threatened a bully with a bb gun?

Like I said, aside from taking our guns, what do we fear the government will do once they have taken our guns?

Foreign countries are more likely to invade. "Wolverines!!"

 

[5 digit know nothing]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns".

People buy guns for self-defense. You don't understand that when a government infringes on peoples right and duty to protect their family and their property that this is a bad thing?

 

[Chaka]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

>Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns".

People buy guns for self-defense. You don't understand that when a government infringes on peoples right and duty to protect their family and their property that this is a bad thing?

So is self defense the only concern you have with the government taking guns? It seems that a lot of people also believe that an armed citizenry protects us from direct threats posed by our government, I imagine if I sifted through all 529 of your posts in this thread something along those lines would show up. I am just curious what those threats from the American Government are that our guns are protecting us from.

I think it is important to understand as many of the positions in this debate as possible.

 

[ATC1]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

>Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns&

quot;.

People buy guns for self-defense. You don't understand that when a government infringes on peoples right and duty to protect their family and their property that this is a bad thing?

So is self defense the only concern you have with the government taking guns? It seems that a lot of people also believe that an armed citizenry protects us from direct threats posed by our government, I imagine if I sifted through all 529 of your posts in this thread something along those lines would show up. I am just curious what those threats from the American Government are that our guns are protecting us from.

I think it is important to understand as many of the positions in this debate as possible.

I arm myself for self defense. I feel that a quicker response to a threat increases the chances for survival and reduces the number of victims in mass shootings. If they did start seizing guns I would not feel confident the government to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

 

[timschochet]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:

If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.

The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

 

[[icon]]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

I'm not under any delusions that the people of America will need to rise up against some massive government oppression.... and I think the vast vast majority of gun owners feel the same way. However "Cmon, there is a 99.9% chance the Government won't necessitate a rebellion" is no way near enough of a reason to discard the 2nd Amendment and take away the weapons from law abiding citizens.

I support the 2nd Amendment I just want to understand the fear of the government argument. If they took our guns what would they do to trample our liberties that they aren't currently doing?

I think you're chasing a straw man here. For my purposes the reason I am opposed to anti-gun legislation:

1) Sporting (Target Shooting / Hunting) : I enjoy the sporting aspect of shooting.

2) Self-Defense/Protection: I live in Memphis. I concealed carry to protect myself. I have a shotgun in the home with a collapsable recoil-suppression stock that my Girlfriend (5'3" 115lbs) is comfortable shooting. We have both gone through concealed carry classes, safety classes, and have spent measurable time at ranges becoming familiar with our weapons for both safety and effectiveness purposes. If someone breaks in while I'm traveling on business, I am confident she can protect herself. The safety of those I love is of paramount importance.ADDING: A recent study indicated that 0.5% of American citizens have used a firearm to protect themselves from a situation that they were reasonably certain they would have been killed otherwise. That doesn't sound like a large percentage but when you consider that it's hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been saved... it becomes clear this is an important factor.

3) #### hits the fan : The government has shown repeatedly recently that they are incapable of responding swiftly and effectively to major disasters. I recognize that the odds of me ever being caught up in one of these disasters is slim.... however our proximity to the New Madrid Fault Zone, and the recent historic flooding of the MS river nearby bumps up those odds enough that I prefer to have the means to protect my family against looters and such in the event the government is unable to respond quickly enough. 4) Protect Vs The Government: for me, this really isn't on the radar. Even if the government does get out of hand and begin imposing some crazy marshall law scenario for whatever unlikely reason (they wont) then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Me... I don't even think about that... my focus is on one and two and, to a lesser extent, three. 5) Finally... it's a right afforded by the second amendment. I don't like those rights being tampered with. You can play the "militia" angle but the supreme court has ruled that was a modifying clause that doesn't limit the basic premise of the amendment. We're seeing a gradual erosion of civil liberties in this nation and, as a libertarian, I oppose any further degradation of these freedoms. You ask why I own a couple guns? That's a lot of the reason. I'm a professional white collar guy who's not a member of any crazy militias... but I also chose to exercise my right to gun ownership for those reasons.

 

[Chaka]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

>Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns&

quot;.

People buy guns for self-defense. You don't understand that when a government infringes on peoples right and duty to protect their family and their property that this is a bad thing?

So is self defense the only concern you have with the government taking guns? It seems that a lot of people also believe that an armed citizenry protects us from direct threats posed by our government, I imagine if I sifted through all 529 of your posts in this thread something along those lines would show up. I am just curious what those threats from the American Government are that our guns are protecting us from.

I think it is important to understand as many of the positions in this debate as possible.

I arm myself for self defense. I feel that a quicker response to a threat increases the chances for survival and reduces the number of victims in mass shootings. If they did start seizing guns I would not feel confident the government to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

But are mass shootings really the main issue or just the one that sells newspapers? I mean mass shootings are the exception when it comes to gun violence. I believe we average around 800 people per year who are killed just by accidental shootings. Around 19,000 die from suicide by gun and thousands more from malicious gun violence.

And how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens? I know there was a citizen with a conceal/carry (Nick Miel) at the Clackamas Town Center shooting but he did not fire on the shooter, wisely IMO, who ended up killing himself. And one could also make an argument for restricting the size of magazines from the CTC shooting because it was due to the break in fire from the shooter having to clear a jam that allowed Miel to draw his weapon and take a position to even aim at the shooter. More breaks in fire most likely means more lives saved.

The Pearl High School shooting is a good example of an armed citizen possibly saving additional lives as he prevented the shooter from leaving the school until authorities arrived.

Any others? Do we save or lose more lives due to our obsession with guns? And don't deny guns are a national obsession, we have more guns per capita by an enormous margin over any other country in the world for which we have data,

 

[[icon]]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

Two separate issues: 1) Fear that Gov't will attempt to seize firearms : I believe this is a very real possibility at some point. 2) Government will "impose a dictatorship": I believe this is a foolish stance that is highly highly highly unlikely to ever occur.

 

[timschochet]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

Two separate issues: 1) Fear that Gov't will attempt to seize firearms : I believe this is a very real possibility at some point. 2) Government will "impose a dictatorship": I believe this is a foolish stance that is highly highly highly unlikely to ever occur.

Well, there are different levels of gun paranoia, much like Dante's Inferno. By believing point #1, you have descended through the first several levels. But your skepticism about the second point prevents you from descending even further.

 

[Chaka]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

I'm not under any delusions that the people of America will need to rise up against some massive government oppression.... and I think the vast vast majority of gun owners feel the same way. However "Cmon, there is a 99.9% chance the Government won't necessitate a rebellion" is no way near enough of a reason to discard the 2nd Amendment and take away the weapons from law abiding citizens.

I support the 2nd Amendment I just want to understand the fear of the government argument. If they took our guns what would they do to trample our liberties that they aren't currently doing?

I think you're chasing a straw man here. For my purposes the reason I am opposed to anti-gun legislation:

1) Sporting (Target Shooting / Hunting) : I enjoy the sporting aspect of shooting.

2) Self-Defense/Protection: I live in Memphis. I concealed carry to protect myself. I have a shotgun in the home with a collapsable recoil-suppression stock that my Girlfriend (5'3" 115lbs) is comfortable shooting. We have both gone through concealed carry classes, safety classes, and have spent measurable time at ranges becoming familiar with our weapons for both safety and effectiveness purposes. If someone breaks in while I'm traveling on business, I am confident she can protect herself. The safety of those I love is of paramount importance.ADDING: A recent study indicated that 0.5% of American citizens have used a firearm to protect themselves from a situation that they were reasonably certain they would have been killed otherwise. That doesn't sound like a large percentage but when you consider that it's hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been saved... it becomes clear this is an important factor.

3) #### hits the fan : The government has shown repeatedly recently that they are incapable of responding swiftly and effectively to major disasters. I recognize that the odds of me ever being caught up in one of these disasters is slim.... however our proximity to the New Madrid Fault Zone, and the recent historic flooding of the MS river nearby bumps up those odds enough that I prefer to have the means to protect my family against looters and such in the event the government is unable to respond quickly enough. 4) Protect Vs The Government: for me, this really isn't on the radar. Even if the government does get out of hand and begin imposing some crazy marshall law scenario for whatever unlikely reason (they wont) then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Me... I don't even think about that... my focus is on one and two and, to a lesser extent, three. 5) Finally... it's a right afforded by the second amendment. I don't like those rights being tampered with. You can play the "militia" angle but the supreme court has ruled that was a modifying clause that doesn't limit the basic premise of the amendment. We're seeing a gradual erosion of civil liberties in this nation and, as a libertarian, I oppose any further degradation of these freedoms. You ask why I own a couple guns? That's a lot of the reason. I'm a professional white collar guy who's not a member of any crazy militias... but I also chose to exercise my right to gun ownership for those reasons.

I have no problem with 1 & 2 and agree that 4 should not even be on the radar.

Regarding 5 it really seems to be an extension of 4. I support the second amendment and would never want to see gun ownership entirely forbidden but, by the same token, I don't see our guns protecting us from the current erosion of our civil liberties, which I don't think you would argue is not happening.

3 is an interesting scenario and likely the one I can get most behind but my next question is what type of guns do you need to feel safe in this situation? Let's face it, the government is never going to take away all of our guns but do you truly believe that you would need a fully automatic rifle or even a semi-automatic AR-15 with two high capacity banana clips (or something along those lines) to make you safe in the civil unrest scenario? Wouldn't your hunting rifle(s), shotgun(s) and handgun(s) make you feel secure enough that any predators would move on to easier targets?

Also I wish you would post links or mention sources of any studies you wish to put forward. I am not disagreeing with the data, it certainly passes the smell test, but it helps put things in context.